Samuel H. Sloan, appeals from the decision of this court dated November 3, 2003 on the following grounds.
1. The court ignored the fact that Creighton Sloan is disqualified from serving as the personal representative of his mother because, at the time of her death, there were numerous lawsuits pending between Creighton Sloan and his mother Helen Marjorie Sloan. The gist of there lawsuits was that Helen Marjorie Sloan was accusing Creighton Sloan of stealing her money including her bank accounts and her pension and social security checks and Creighton Sloan was claiming that he had a right to those funds. Among these suits were Creighton Sloan vs. Sovran Bank in which Creighton requested and obtained an ex-party freeze on the bank accounts of Helen Marjorie Sloan, Creighton Sloan vs. Helen Marjorie Sloan in which Creighton Sloan falsely claimed to be the conservator of his mother and obtained the sale of her house and kept the money and Helen Marjorie Sloan vs. Creighton Sloan filed in the Circuit Court for the City of Charlottesville Virginia in which Helen Marjorie Sloan demanded an accounting of all the funds taken by Creighton Sloan. All of these lawsuits are still pending as no final judgment or decree has been entered in any of them. It is especially significant that in the Charlottesville case, Helen Marjorie Sloan demanded an accounting of the funds from both Creighton and the Sovran Bank (now Bank of America) and neither Creighton nor the bank has ever provided an accounting. At the hearing before Judge Hocker, Creighton still failed and refused to provide any accounting of the funds and it was demonstrably proven that Creighton has persistently been removing funds from his mother's bank accounts and has been stealing his mother's pension and social security checks, amounting to a total of about $5,000 per month, since at least 1985. Judge Hocker ruled that events dating back to 1985 were not relevant, but the court was in error because Creighton never stopped stealing his mother's money. This has been his persistent pattern for a very long time. Although the Bank of America was appointed the conservator in 1991 on Creighton's petition, the record shows that from then until the death of Helen Marjorie Sloan in May 2002, 11 years later, not even one pension or social security check reached the Bank of America. Instead Creighton was taking the checks and depositing them in other bank accounts he controlled. This constituted grand larceny for which Creighton should be punished in accordance with law, especially since it was proven at trial that the total funds taken by Creighton amount to more than one million dollars.
2. Creighton Sloan was in default in this case and failed to appear for nearly one year after his mother's death. He has still never notified the banks that his mother has died or provided them with a copy of her death certificate. Sam Sloan filed a petition to be appointed his mother's personal representative in July 2002. Although no opposition to this petition was filed, Judge Amy McCullough scheduled a hearing for November 20, 2002. Creighton W. Sloan never filed anything and did not appear for the hearing. However, just before the hearing Judge McCullough announced that her friend had died and therefore she could not conduct the hearing because she had to be at the funeral at the same time. The name of this friend has never been identified. Later the same day Judge McCullough said that she would not schedule a hearing until Creighton Sloan filed a competing petition which he had until the end of January to do. This showed bias by the courts against the only then petitioner, Samuel Sloan. Finally, Creighton Sloan filed a competing petition on January 23, 2003, more than eight months after his mother had died, but did not file proof of service of that petition on the other parties. Again, no hearing was scheduled awaiting the filing of this proof of service. The petition of Creighton Sloan was not served on the parties until August 15, 2003, now 15 months after the death of Helen Marjorie Sloan. This petition should never have been accepted by the courts as it was filed more than one year after the time for filing had expired.
3. After accepting this tardy petition for filing, and after several judges had disqualified themselves from the case, Judge Hocker made the bizarre ruling that only Creighton's petition was before the court and Sam Sloan's petition filed one year earlier was not before the court because it was an "informal petition" even though Sam Sloan had used the same form for filing as Creighton Sloan. Judge Hocker then deemed Creighton as "plaintiff" in the case and Samuel Sloan as the respondent.
4. Samuel Sloan had retained counsel, Patricia L. Harrison, at an early stage of this case in 2002 when it was uncontested. Creighton Sloan did not retain counsel until 2003. By October 2003, the retainer fee paid by Samuel Sloan to Patricia Harrison had been exhausted. Meanwhile, Creighton had virtually unlimited funds to pay counsel because he had stolen more than one million dollars from his mother and had the remainder of those funds in the Sun Trust Bank in Lynchburg Virginia and in the First Citizens Bank in Columbia, South Carolina. Thereupon, Judge Hocker allowed Patricia Harrison to withdraw as counsel. This gave Creighton Sloan an unfair and indeed decisive advantage in this case. It is apparent from the final decision made by Judge Hocker that had Patricia Harrison still been on the case, Samuel Sloan would have prevailed especially since Judge Hocker suggested that the funds be held by a lawyer for one of the parties and Creighton Sloan was the only party still having a lawyer. It was by no means the fault of Samuel Sloan that the case continued for one year beyond the originally scheduled November 2002 hearing date. His rights should not be adversely affected as a result.
5. The record of this case clearly establishes that Creighton committed perjury many times and has often disobeyed court orders. Just a few of the many examples are that in April 1991, the Aiken County Probate Court appointed NCNB Bank (now Bank of America) as the conservator for Helen Marjorie Sloan. Obviously, that bank was supposed to start receiving the pension and social security checks of Helen Marjorie Sloan amounting to five thousand dollars per month. Instead, the bank never received the checks. Creighton got the checks. Creighton opened new bank accounts with banks unfamiliar with this case and deposited the checks in those accounts. These included Sun Trust Bank in Lynchburg and First Citizens Bank in Columbia. Helen Marjorie Sloan never had an account with either of these banks or with their predecessors. Helen Marjorie Sloan had an account only with Sovran Bank in Lynchburg where she had established a trust account to stop Creighton Sloan from stealing her money. Creighton Sloan invaded the trust account and first obtained a freeze on the trust account and withdrew all the funds from all the other accounts of Helen Marjorie Sloan. There has never been an accounting of those funds. Recently or at least subsequent to 1994 Creighton Sloan somehow was able to obtain possession of the remaining funds amounting to about two hundred thousand dollars. The whereabouts of those funds are unknown. Creighton has possibly secreted them in an unknown bank account undisclosed to the courts or has simply spent, stolen or misappropriated the money. By appointing Creighton Sloan as the personal representative of his mother Judge Hocker has closed the door to any inquiries as to the whereabouts of these funds. Creighton's lawyer even argued that this should be done to close the door to end the controversy. Thus, the court has shown that its intention to seal the door and to prevent the rightful heirs from ever finding out what happened to the funds of Helen Marjorie Sloan. This is improper and requires reversal.
6. Further examples of lying by Creighton Sloan: He testified that his mother moved to South Carolina in 1985. On other occasions he testified that she moved to South Carolina in 1986. The difference is critical because in August 1986 Helen Marjorie Sloan fled from her home in Lynchburg Virginia for fear of Creighton. On September 3, 1986, Creighton had his mother briefly arrested and detained in New York City. For this reason and again in fear of Creighton, she fled the country. On September 3, 1990 Creighton Sloan had his mother kidnapped in Bangkok, Thailand and brought back to America. He then had her held in nursing homes in Maryland, not in South Carolina. After she tried to escape from there several times, he had her brought to South Carolina where he had her locked up in nursing homes until she died 12 years later. Thus Helen Marjorie Sloan never had a residence in South Carolina. She was never even in that state prior to 1990. Her residence was Virginia and the courts of South Carolina have no jurisdiction over this case.
7. In 1993, two years after the NCNB Bank, now Bank of America, was appointed as the conservator, Creighton Sloan sold his mother's house at 917 Old Trent's Ferry Road in Lynchburg and kept the money. In his decision, Judge Hocker ridiculed Samuel Sloan's claim that he wanted to be appointed as the personal representative to recover possession of the house. However, Samuel Sloan's claim is valid because Creighton had no legal right to sell that house. Thus the sale of the house was invalid and the house which has considerable value is still the property of the estate. It is obvious that Creighton was not the conservator when he sold the house. The bank was the conservator.
8. At trial, Creighton contradicted himself and lied many times. For example, at one point the testified that he had been appointed the conservator in Virginia. This was a lie, as no such appointment has ever been made. On another occasion he testified that the appointment of the bank as conservator only was valid in South Carolina and does not apply to Virginia. This was another material misrepresentation because the transcript of the proceedings in Virginia show that Creighton testified there that he was the conservator in South Carolina and therefore had the right to sell his mother's house. As this took place in 1993 and the bank was appointed conservator in April, 1991, this was a clear lie. It is obvious that Creighton has lied repeatedly to the various courts and judges and attorneys and by these lies has been able to gain control of almost all of his mother's funds which he has treated as his own.
9. All of the above can readily be seen from a transcript of the trial. It is obvious that Judge Hocker ruled as he did to protect the old boy network of judges and lawyers in South Carolina. It is obvious that Creighton needs to spend substantial prison time for kidnapping his mother and also for arranging the kidnappings of several children of Samuel Sloan and Judge Hocker realizes that several of his fellow judges will go to prison as well for aiding and abetting Creighton Sloan in these endeavors. Therefore, Judge Hocker has become a co-conspirator and a participant in these crimes, because anybody can see that large amounts of money has been stolen, and kidnappings have occurred and by ruling as he has done the door has been forever closed to an investigation into these matters.
10. Judge Hocker should have realized that his order of the court would never be implemented. In fact, since the date of the decision of November 3, 2003, absolutely nothing has been done to implement the court's decision. Creighton Sloan has not posted a bond nor has he turned the funds over to his lawyer. He obviously has no intention of ever doing so, and why should he since he already has possession of the majority of the funds of his late mother. He claims that he has not been able to do this because he could not take off time from work. However, he has traveled to Las Vegas Nevada where on December 20, 2003 he attended a party and a wedding reception and engaged in gambling activities. He also paid money to Charles and Shelby Roberts, who kidnapped Shamema Sloan, daughter of Samuel Sloan, and who are right now claiming custody of Jessica Sloan, another daughter of Samuel Sloan. Creighton Sloan has recently told the Roberts that he will see to it that Samuel Sloan will never get a dime of the inheritance money from his mother and that the Roberts will get some of that money. All of this should have been obvious from the facts adduced at the hearing before the probate court.
This is just a short list of the many errors committed by the probate court. In summary, Creighton Sloan has been stealing money from his mother for a long time. The judges and the lawyers before the courts all know this, but they dare not say anything about this because that will mean that they too are guilty of a crime. Therefore, they remain silent and allow Creighton to continue to steal the money.
For all of these reasons, the decision of Judge Hocker must be reversed.
Respectfully Submitted,
Samuel H. Sloan
920 Belmont Avenue
Brooklyn NY 11208
(718) 277-6957
1-347-351-9352
samsloan@samsloan.com
January 15, 2004
Copy to:
Catherine H. Kennedy
Attorney for Creighton Sloan
Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP
1330 Lady Street
PO Box 11070
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
Creighton W. Sloan
102 Indian Creek Trail
Aiken, South Carolina 29803
Patricia L. Harrison
611 Holly Street
Columbia, South Carolina 29205
Samuel H. Sloan, being duly sworn, deposes and says that on January 15, 2004 he mailed the within grounds for appeal to all counsel at the following addresses:
Catherine H. Kennedy
Attorney for Creighton Sloan
Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP
1330 Lady Street
PO Box 11070
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
Creighton W. Sloan
102 Indian Creek Trail
Aiken, South Carolina 29803
Patricia L. Harrison
611 Holly Street
Columbia, South Carolina 29205
__________________________
Samuel H. Sloan
Sworn to before me this 15th
Day of January 2004
______________________________
NOTARY PUBLIC